Hierarchy of factors driving N2O emissions in nontilled soils ...

European Journal of Soil Science, October 2013, 64, 550–557 

doi: 10.1111/ejss.12080 

Hierarchy of factors driving N 2 O emissions in non-tilled 

soils under different crops 

V. R. N. Cosentino a,b,c ,S.A.FigueiroAureggui b,d & M. A. Taboada a,b,c 

a Cátedra de Fertilidad y Fertilizantes, Facultad de Agronomía, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Av. San Martín 4453, C1417DSE Buenos 

Aires, Argentina, b CONICET, Av. Rivadavia 1917, C1033AAJ, Buenos Aires, Argentina, c Instituto de Suelos Castelar, INTA, Buenos 

Aires, Argentina, and d Cátedra de Edafología, Facultad de Agronomía, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Av. San Martín 4453, C1417DSE 

Buenos Aires, Argentina 

Summary 

Nitrous oxide (N 2 O) is emitted to the atmosphere as a by-product of nitrification and denitrification by soil 

microbial processes. Differences in climate, soil and management regulate these processes, causing N 2 O 

emissions to vary in space and time. This study aimed to identify and rank the soil properties that control N 2 O 

emissions in non-tilled soils under different crops. Over a period of 2 years, gas samples were taken from closed 

chambers and soil properties were determined once per season. N 2 O emission rates were highly variable (from 

−15 to 314 μg N 2 O-N m −2 hour −1 ). A regression tree analysis allowed us to classify soil N 2 O emissions into 

three groups, separated by topsoil temperature (primary factor) and water-filled pore space (WFPS, secondary 

factor). N 2 O emissions were small (mean 4.22 μg N 2 O-N m −2 hour −1 ) with topsoil temperature less than 14 ◦ C 

(Group 1), large (mean 61.87 μgN 2 O-N m −2 hour −1 ) with topsoil temperature between 14 and 23 ◦ C and WFPS 

more than 58.5% (Group 2) and moderate (mean 21.4 μg N 2 O-N m −2 hour −1 ) with topsoil temperature more 

than 23 ◦ C and WFPS less than 58.5% (Group 3). These emission groups allow for more efficient sampling 

of N 2 O emissions in the field: in winter, when topsoil temperatures are less than 14 ◦ CandN 2 O emissions 

are expected to be small or even negligible, sampling frequency can be reduced; in autumn and spring, when 

topsoil temperatures are more than 14 ◦ C and WFPS is more than 60–70%, sampling frequency should be 

increased. 

Introduction 

Nitrous oxide (N 2 O) is the main greenhouse gas (GHG) generated 

by cropping systems and is the main focus of efforts aimed at 

mitigating GHG emissions from agricultural soils (IPCC, 2007; 

Snyder et al., 2009). Soil N 2 O emissions are variable in space 

and time, giving rise to ‘hot spots’ and ‘hot moments’ that are 

difficult to predict (McClain et al., 2003). This large variability 

results from the complex set of environmental variables, such 

as soil and microbial community heterogeneity, which control 

the nitrification and denitrification processes responsible for N 2 O 

emissions (Firestone & Davidson, 1989). Often, the cause of the 

large N 2 O emission rates in ‘hot spots’ and ‘hot moments’ can be 

linked to only one variable. 

There is considerable controversy about the main variable 

driving N 2 O emission rates and about the way a given variable 

can promote or limit N 2 O emissions in different situations. For 

Correspondence: M. A. Taboada. E-mail: mtaboada@cnia.inta.gov.ar 

Received 22 July 2013; revised version accepted 22 July 2013 

example, Shelton et al. (2000) found a linear relationship between 

N 2 O emissions and soil water content between field capacity 

(60% water-filled pore space, WFPS) and water saturation (100% 

WFPS). On the other hand, Schindlbacher & Zechmeister- 

Boltenstern (2004) observed maximum emissions between 80 and 

95% of WFPS, with decreasing N 2 O emission rates at more 

than 95% WFPS. Dobbie & Smith (2001) and Schindlbacher & 

Zechmeister-Boltenstern (2004) observed a positive relationship 

between N 2 O emissions and topsoil temperature when the WFPS 

percentage remained large, while Almaraz et al. (2009) found a 

negative relationship between the two variables in a field trial 

in which N 2 O emissions were related to rainfall. Under field 

conditions, agricultural traffic and zero tillage may increase soil 

bulk density and give way to anaerobic zones in surface horizons 

(Sasal et al., 2006). This may give rise to N 2 O emissions caused 

by denitrification processes (Beare et al., 2009). 

Nitrous oxide emission rates depend on the sum of variables 

required by soil microbial populations to carry out nitrification 

and denitrification processes. These variables can be divided 

into components such as substrate availability (NO 3 − , NH 4 + , 

550 © 2013 British Society of Soil Science

Hierarchy of factors driving N 2 O emissions 551 

NO 2 − and labile carbon, C) and factors (O 2 availability, soil 

moisture and temperature) whose actions are often hierarchical. 

If one or more of these variables is affected, N 2 O emissions 

are likely to diminish. The ecological stoichiometry controlling 

emissions is the balance of multiple chemical substances, energy 

and materials in ecological interactions and processes. This 

conceptual framework has been successfully applied to topics 

ranging from population dynamics to biogeochemical cycling. 

This approach provides a tool for analysing how the balance 

of the multiple factors required by soil organisms affects N 2 O 

production (Sterner & Elser, 2002; Hessen et al., 2004). Our study 

aimed to identify and rank the soil variables driving N 2 O emission 

rates across seasons in non-tilled soils under different crops. It 

was hypothesized that the conceptual framework of ecological 

stoichiometry would be a useful approach to understanding the 

variation of N 2 O emissions under field conditions. 

Materials and methods 

A non-manipulative field trial was conducted between April 2009 

and February 2011 to determine N 2 O emission rates and their 

main driving factors, in an agricultural field in the Province of 

Buenos Aires, Argentina (34 ◦ 57 ′ 29 ′′ S, 60 ◦ 13 ′ 11 ′′ W). The soil was 

a loamy Typic Argiudoll (clay 190 g kg −1 ; silt 400 g kg −1 ) from 

the O’Higgins series (INTA, 2012) with 35.2 g kg −1 organic matter 

and pH (1:2.5 soil:water suspension) of 5.7 in the A horizon. The 

field was under continuous no-till farming with a three-year crop 

sequence composed of wheat/double crop soyabean–maize/full 

season soyabean. In this sequence 85–95 kg N ha −1 as urea was 

added at the time of wheat sowing and when maize was at the 

V 3–5 phenological stage. 

Measurements were performed following a systematic stratified 

design. In the 30-ha experimental area (Figure 1), six field plots 

were seasonally sampled (approximately every three months) 

over two years. Measurements were performed in two temporallyshifted 

three-year crop sequences: (i) Sequence 1, starting with 

full season soyabean residues; and (ii) Sequence 2, starting with 

double cropped soyabean residues (Table 1). These cropping 

sequences allowed for simultaneous measurement of the response 

variables of interest in the various crops of the typical cropping 

sequence of the region. In this way, we expected to capture the 

possible variability in N 2 O emissions across seasons. In order to 

capture the variability caused by the passage of farm machinery 

typical of a non-tilled topsoil, six samples were taken, within each 

cropping sequence, at two positions in the plot: (i) border (large 

traffic intensity); and (ii) away from the border (small traffic intensity). 

The three chambers in the same position within the plot were 

10 m apart; those in different positions were 50 m apart (Figure 

1). Each field chamber was considered as an experimental unit. 

Gas samples were taken from within static, closed and nonvented 

chambers (surface = 0.13 m 2 , height = 0.125 m), inserted 

into the soil to a depth of 0.05 m. Each chamber had a metal 

base and an aluminum-coated plastic top. As the field trial was 

carried out on a production farm, we had to remove the chambers 

after sampling and re-insert them 24 hours before the subsequent 

sampling. After each insertion, 15 mm tap water was added to 

each chamber in order to ensure an adequate seal between the soil 

and the chamber base before gas sampling. This addition of water 

sometimes resulted in a small increase in WFPS values at each 

sampling date. 

Sampling was carried out in the morning, as described by 

Cosentino et al. (2012). Gas samples were taken from the chamber 

headspace at 0, 20 and 40-minute intervals after closing the 

chambers. Gases were extracted using a vacuum pump, and 

injected into previously evacuated 25-cm 3 vials sealed with rubber 

stoppers fixed to the vial with an aluminum flange. We followed 

this procedure on each sampling date and for each of the six 

chambers within each plot. 

Within seven days of sampling, N 2 O was measured in the 

laboratory with a GC 6890 Agilent Technologies Network gas 

chromatograph, fitted with a 63 Ni electron capture detector 

(Agilent Network GC System, ÁECD, Santa Clara, CA, USA) and 

a30m× 530 μm × 25 μm Molsieve HP-Plot column. The oven, 

injector and detector temperatures were 150, 100 and 300 ◦ C, 

respectively. The carrier gas was N 2 and the injection volume 

was 0.5 cm 3 . 

The N 2 O fluxes (f ) were calculated as: 

f = C 

t 

× V A × m V m 

, (1) 

where C /t is the change in N 2 O concentration in the chamber 

during the incubation time t, V is the volume of the chamber 

(16.7 dm 3 ), A is the soil area (0.13 m 2 ) covered by the chamber, 

m is the molecular mass of N 2 OandV m is molar volume of 

N 2 O. Gas fluxes were calculated as the increase in concentration 

during the incubation period. A linear function was fitted to the 

N 2 O emission/incubation time relationship. When the coefficient 

of determination (R 2 ) of the fitted linear function was greater than 

0.7 the slope of the function was taken to be the rate of N 2 Oflux 

over the 0–40 minutes interval. When R 2 was smaller than 0.7 and 

a linear function could not be fitted, N 2 O flux over the interval 

was considered to be null. In this study, the minimum detectable 

limits (distinguishable from zero) were either more than 0.3 μg 

N 2 O-N m −2 hour −1 or less than −0.3 μg N 2 O-N m −2 hour −1 .All 

measured N 2 O emission values were included in the analysis. 

At the same time as the flux measurements, topsoil temperature 

was measured at 0.10 m depth beside each chamber. After 

gas sampling, soil samples (0–0.2 m in depth) from inside the 

chamber perimeter were taken. Nitrate-N was extracted from 

wet soil samples with a solution of CuSO 4 (Jackson, 1958) 

and nitrate concentration was determined by colorimetry (Keeney 

& Nelson, 1982) after reduction of nitrate to nitrite (Markus 

et al., 1985). Topsoil structural types or classes in each site 

were described according to Soil Survey Staff (1999). Soil bulk 

density (BD; 100 cm 3 cylinders; 0.05 m diameter) and gravimetric 

water content (GWC) were determined on samples taken within 

the perimeter of each field chamber. Both BD and GWC values 

© 2013 British Society of Soil Science, European Journal of Soil Science, 64, 550–557

552 V. R. N. Cosentino et al. 

Figure 1 Experimental plot locations within fields (left) and chamber locations within each plot (right). Grey squares correspond to sequence 1, black 

squares correspond to sequence 2. 

Table 1 Chronogram of sampling, sowing, N fertilizer and harvest of the two crop sequences over 2 years 

Sequence 1 Soyabean res. Wheat W res. Double crop. soyabean Soyabean residue Maize 

2009 2010 2011 

Date of May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar 

Sampling X X X X X X X X 

Sowing X X X 

N fertilization X X 

Harvesting X X 

Sequence 2 Soyabean res. Maize Maize residue Full season Soyabean 

2009 2010 2011 

Date of May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar 

Sampling X X X X X X X X 

Sowing X X 

N fertilazation 

X 

Hervesting 

X 

w. res. = wheat residue; crop. = cropping. 

were used to calculate porosity (P), assuming a particle density 

(Dp) of 2.65 Mg m −3 , and volumetric water content (VWC) using 

Equations (2) and (3): 

P = 1 − (BD/Dp) , (2) 

VWC = GWC × BD. (3) 

The percentage of WFPS was calculated by subtracting VWC 

from P. 

A decision tree analysis, based on a procedure originally 

proposed by Morgan & Sonquist (1963) and later used by others 

(cited by Lemon et al., 2003), was used to separate a single 

group of values into more homogeneous subgroups. This analysis 

involves a series of decisions, given that a sample is considered as 

a single group. The parent group is transformed into two new subgroups 

to minimize the sum of squares; each subgroup becomes 

more homogenous in the response variable (N 2 O emission rate). 

In such a way, each subgroup turns into a new parent group. 

These divisions may be repeated as many times as necessary. 

Linear regression analysis was used to fit functions to the 

relationship between subgroup N 2 O emission rates and soil 

NO 3 − -N concentration. Each point in the regression scatter was 

the result of the individual measurement of each chamber. The 

Infostat package was used for decision tree and linear regression 

analysis (Infostat, 2002). 

Results 

Away from the border locations, topsoils had mainly granular and 

subangular blocky aggregates, while those in border locations had 



Figure 2 Distribution pattern of N 2 O emission rates as a function of water-filled pore space (WFPS), soil NO 3 − -N concentration and topsoil temperature 

(left to right). 

Figure 3 Relationship between water-filled pore space (WFPS) and 

topsoil temperature. 

mainly planar, massive and subangular blocky aggregates. Despite 

these different structural types, similar topsoil bulk densities (from 

1.2 to 1.4 Mg m −3 ) were observed in both locations in the plots: 

N 2 O emission rates were also similar away from the border and 

in border locations. 

During the study period, N 2 O emission rates ranged between 

−15 and 314 μg N 2 O-N m −2 hour −1 , with large variability among 

replicates. When plotted against all measured soil properties, no 

relationship between emission rates and WFPS or soil NO 3 − - 

N concentration was observed, but N 2 O emission rates showed 

a clearer response pattern across the topsoil temperature range 

(Figure 2). Nitrous oxide emission rates were very variable in the 

14–23 ◦ C topsoil temperature range, whereas they were smaller 

and less variable at topsoil temperatures less than 14 ◦ C and more 

than 23 ◦ C. A negative relationship between soil temperature and 

WFPS was observed with R 2 = 0.137 and P < 0.0001 (Figure 3). 

The regression tree analysis showed three groups of N 2 O 

emission rates which differed significantly (P < 0.001): Group 

1, small N 2 O emission rates, 4.22 ± 4.11 μg N 2 O-N m −2 hour −1 ; 

Group 2, large N 2 O emission rates, 61.87 ± 4.07 μg N 2 O- 

Nm −2 hour −1 ; and Group 3, moderate N 2 O emission rates, 

21.4 ± 5.01 μg N 2 O-N m −2 hour −1 (Figure 4). These emission 

groups coincide with the distribution pattern of topsoil temperature 

(Figure 2). 

The small N 2 O emission rates (Group 1) occurred during winter, 

when topsoil temperatures were always less than 14 ◦ C, as was 

found in both crop sequences in June and August 2009 and 2010 

(Figure 5). In this case the rate of N 2 O emissions showed no 

relationship with any of the measured variables. The large N 2 O 

emission rates (Group 2) were associated with topsoil temperatures 

of more than 14 ◦ C and WFPS of more than 58.5% (Figure 4), 

observed in November 2009 (crop sequence 2, Figure 5) and 

March and October 2010 (crop sequences 1 and 2, Figure 5). 

The moderate N 2 O emission rates (Group 3) occurred at topsoil 

temperatures of more than 23 ◦ C and WFPS less than 58.5% 

(Figure 4). They were observed in November 2009 (crop sequence 

1, Figure 5), December 2010 and February 2011 (crop sequences 

1 and 2, Figure 5). 

The large and moderate N 2 O emission rates (Groups 2 and 3) 

were positively related to soil NO 3 − -N concentration. However, 

the slope of fitted straight lines describing these relationships was 

different for each emission group and crop (Figure 6). Good 

relationships were found for maize and wheat, and in fallow 

periods with soyabean residues (Figure 6). No clear relationship 

was found for periods under soyabean crops, regardless of the 

N 2 O emission group and temperature range considered. 

Discussion 

N 2 O emission values were divided into three groups, each of 

which was associated with one or more of the study variables. The 

first limiting variable was topsoil temperature, which separated the 

small emission group (Group 1) from the remainder (Figures 4, 

5). In this emission group, topsoil temperature (less than 14 ◦ C) 

had a direct effect, probably because of reduced microbial activity 

at these temperatures, which influences N 2 O emissions (Keeney 

et al., 1979; Trumbore et al., 1996; Farquharson & Baldock, 2008; 

Maljanen et al., 2009). 

The results of this study are consistent with those observed by 

others (Trumbore et al., 1996) who found a decrease in microbial 



Figure 4 Results of the regression tree analysis, 

showing the main variables affecting N 2 O 

emission rates. 

activity with decreasing topsoil temperature. However, Maljanen 

et al. (2009) found that even in sub-zero temperatures (−6.8 ◦ C) 

N 2 O emissions were observed in soils that undergo freezing 

processes regularly, and where an adaptation of the microbial 

community to low temperatures could be expected. This is not 

the case in a temperate region such as the Argentine Pampa, 

which suggests that, at our study site, microbial communities are 

probably not adapted to produce N 2 O at low temperatures because 

the soils are never frozen. 

Nitrous oxide emissions were large and very variable with 

topsoil temperatures between 14 and 23 ◦ C and WFPS more than 

58.3% (Group 2, Figures 4, 5). These variations were positively 

related to soil NO −_ 3 N concentration, as shown by the fitted 

relationships for maize and soyabean residues (Figure 6). Events 

characterized by both large temperature and large WFPS could 

favour relatively large rates of N 2 O production, provided sufficient 

NO − 3 was present in the soil (Castaldi, 2000). In fact, measured 

NO − 3 -N concentrations were always more than 5 mg kg −1 in the 

study site, suggesting that soil nitrate never limited N 2 O emissions 

totally, as has been shown by Dobbie et al. (1999). 

According to Dalal et al. (2003) denitrification rate increases 

with increasing NO − 3 content, when the soil is wet and 

temperature and carbon availability are not limiting. This occurs 

because the presence of NO − 3 inhibits N 2 O to N 2 reduction, 

resulting in a relatively large N 2 O:N 2 ratio at similar humidity and 

oxygen content. Dalal et al. (2010) found a positive correlation 

between N 2 O emissions and soil NO − 3 content, when topsoil 

temperature varied between 10 and 30 ◦ C and WFPS between 30 

and 80%. In contrast, results from a field trial in Denmark with 

no added fertilizer and WFPS of 50–70% (Ambus, 2005) showed 

a negative relationship between the rate of N 2 O emission and 

soil NO − 3 -N concentration. This different result could be due to 

the smaller WFPS in the Danish field trial, which is expected to 

promote nitrification instead of denitrification processes. 

N 2 O emissions were moderate when topsoil temperature was 

more than 14 ◦ C and WFPS less than 58.3% (Group 3, Figures 

4, 5). These moderate N 2 O emissions were smaller than those 

observed in experiments performed under controlled conditions, 

which showed an increase in N 2 O emission rates at temperatures 

as large as 70 ◦ C (Keeney et al., 1979; Schindlbacher & 

Zechmeister-Boltenstern, 2004). These large N 2 O emission values 

are possible when increasing temperatures lead to an increase 

in the size of the soil anaerobic zones (Li et al., 2000), as 

greater respiration rates cause greater O 2 concentration gradients, 

thus resulting in a greater soil volume devoid of oxygen (Smith 

et al., 2003). This would lead to an increase in denitrification. 

Added to this, larger soil temperature causes an increase in 

microbial activity (Farquharson & Baldock, 2008) and increases 

gas solubility, causing a greater loss of N 2 O to the atmosphere 

before being reduced to N 2 (Dalal et al., 2010). 

Our field results showed that WFPS decreased with topsoil 

temperature (Figure 3). Soil drying at greater temperatures avoided 

the development of anaerobic zones, such as those found in 

experiments where soil water content is controlled (Dobbie & 

Smith, 2001; Schindlbacher & Zechmeister-Boltenstern, 2004). 

When a soil dries to less than 60% WFPS, the relative importance 

of denitrification as a source of N 2 O emissions decreases while 

the relative contribution of nitrification increases (Linn & Doran, 

1984). These by-product N 2 O emissions from nitrification are 

usually less than those of denitrification (Castaldi, 2000; Smith 

et al., 2003), which provides an explanation of why N 2 O emission 

rates in Group 3 were only moderate. In this case, the influence 

of topsoil temperature was indirect and mediated by soil water 

content. 

The relationship between N 2 O emissions and soil NO 3 − -N 

concentration differed from Group 2 to Group 3 and between crops 

within each Group (Figure 6). In Group 2, linear relationships were 

fitted when soil was cropped to maize and covered by soyabean 

residues, while no relationship was found in soyabean-cropped 

soil (Figure 6a–c). In Group 3, soil NO 3 − -N concentration also 

influenced N 2 O emission rates under maize and wheat and again 

no relationship was found under soyabean (Figure 6d–f). Nitrous 

oxide emissions under maize and wheat in Group 3 occurred at 

smaller rates than those in Group 2, which can be ascribed to the 

smaller N 2 O emissions when nitrification instead of denitrification 

prevails (Castaldi, 2000; Smith et al., 2003). 



Figure 5 N 2 O emissions during the study period for each crop sequence (bars). Capped vertical lines above each bar are one standard error. Values above 

bars are means and (SE). Below each graph, values for means and (SE) are shown for soil temperature, water-filled pore space (WFPS) and soil NO 3 − -N 

concentration. 

It is interesting to note that soyabean crops did not show a 

linear relationship between N 2 O − and NO 3 − -N, regardless of the 

emission group. It is likely that some unmeasured variable could 

explain N 2 O emissions under soyabean crops, in particular the 

large variability of N 2 O emissions under soyabean in Group 2. 

Ghosh et al. (2002) and Rochette & Janzen (2005) found large 

N 2 O emissions in legume crops, which could be related to other 

factors such as release of root N exudates. Soil organic C is 

another possible biophysical factor regulating N 2 O emissions. 

It can influence N 2 O emissions in two ways, as a source of 

energy for denitrifiers and by increasing biological oxygen demand 

and creating anaerobic zones in the soil (‘hot spots’). In fact, 

additions of degradable organic C may lead to localized depletion 

of oxygen at microsites and enhanced N 2 O production (Helgason 

et al., 2005). The results of N 2 O emissions under soyabean crops 

need further clarification. It is likely that the inclusion of other 

biophysical variables would help explain the origin of large N 2 O 

emissions in soyabean crops better. 

Conclusions 

The most important factor driving soil N 2 O emission rates 

was topsoil temperature, followed by water-filled pore space 

and soil NO − 3 concentration. From this study of non-tilled 

soils, a hierarchical arrangement of factors was used to explain 

N 2 O emission rates, which was determined by which particular 



(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) (e) (f) 

Figure 6 Relationship between N 2 O emission rate and soil NO 3 − -N concentration for different crops and residues. (a–c) Large emissions with topsoil 

temperatures between 14 and 23 ◦ C (Group 3). (d–f) Moderate emissions with soil temperatures more than 23 ◦ C and WFPS less than 58.5% (Group 2). 

variable limited N 2 O production. This followed the hypothesized 

conceptual framework of ecological stoichiometry, which provides 

a useful tool to understand how the balance of these variables 

affects N 2 O production by soil microbes (Hessen et al., 2004). 

The results of this study show the variation and driving factors 

of N 2 O emission rates in an agricultural field under zero tillage and 

temperate climate, arranged in a hierarchical order dominated by 

topsoil temperature. These results could be extrapolated to other 

areas supporting similar soil, climate and management conditions. 

Nitrous oxide emission groups obtained through regression tree 

analysis could be helpful when deciding when a soil should 

be sampled for N 2 O emissions, saving time and effort during 

fieldwork. For example, N 2 O emissions are likely to be small 

or even negligible when topsoil temperatures are less than14 ◦ C, 

a common occurrence during winter in temperate regions. In this 

case, checking topsoil temperature would reduce sampling effort. 

On the other hand, it is important to make measurements when 

WFPS is more than 60–70% and topsoil temperature more than 

14 ◦ C, as often occurs during Autumn and Spring. In this case, 

more frequent N 2 O measurements would be recommended to 

capture all possible environmental variables. 

Acknowledgements 

We are very grateful to Estefania Cartier and her family, on 

whose farm the study was conducted, Flavio Gutiérrez Boem for 

his statistical support in the data analysis, and the anonymous 

reviewers, whose suggestions and criticisms helped us to improve 

the quality of our manuscript. 

References 

Almaraz, J.J., Zhou, X., Mabood, F., Madramootoo, C., Rochette, P., 

Ma, B.L., et al. 2009. Greenhouse gas fluxes associated with soybean 

production under two tillage systems in southwestern Quebec. Soil & 

Tillage Research, 104, 134–139. 

Ambus, P. 2005. Relationship between gross nitrogen cycling and 

nitrous oxide emissionin grass-clover pasture. Nutrient Cycling in 

Agroecosystems, 72, 189–199. 

Beare, M.H., Gregorich, E.G. & St-Georges, P. 2009. Compaction effects 

on CO 2 and N 2 O production during drying and rewetting of soil. Soil 

Biology & Biochemistry, 41, 611–621. 

Castaldi, S. 2000. Responses of nitrous oxide, dinitrogen and carbon 

dioxide production and oxygen consumption to temperature in forest 

and agricultural light-textured soils determined by model experiment. 

Biology & Fertility of Soils, 32, 67–72. 

Cosentino, V.N.R., Fernandez, P.L., Figueiro Aureggi, S.A. & Taboada, 

M.A. 2012. N 2 O emissions from a cultivated Mollisol: optimal time of 

day for sampling and the role of soil temperature. Revista Brasileira de 

Ciência do Solo, 36, 1814–1819. 

Dalal, R.C., Wang, W., Robertson, G.P. & Parton, W.J. 2003. Nitrous 

oxide emission from Australian agricultural lands and mitigation 

options: a review. Australian Journal of Soil Research, 41, 165–195. 

Dalal, R.C., Gibson, I., Allen, D.E. & Menzies, N.W. 2010. Green waste 

compost reduces nitrous oxide emissions from feedlot manure applied 

to soil. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 136, 273–281. 

Dobbie, K.E., McTaggart, I.P. & Smith, K.A. 1999. Nitrous oxide 

emissions from intensive agricultural systems: variations between crops 

and seasons, key driving variables, and mean emission factors. Journal 

of Geophysical Research, 104, 26891–26899. 

Dobbie, K.E. & Smith, K.A. 2001. The effects of temperature, water-filled 

pore space and land use on N 2 O emissions from an imperfectly drained 

gleysol. European Journal of Soil Science, 52, 667–673. 



Farquharson, R. & Baldock, J. 2008. Concepts in modelling N 2 O 

emissions from land use. Plant & Soil, 309, 147–167. 

Firestone, M.K. & Davidson, E.A. 1989. Microbiological basis of NO 

and N 2 O production and consumption in soil. In: Exchange of Trace 

Gases Between Terrestrial Ecosystems and the Atmosphere: Report of 

the Dahlem Workshop on Exchange of Trace Gases Between Terrestrial 

Ecosystems and the Atmosphere (eds M.O. Andreae & D.S. Schimel), 

pp. 7–21. Wiley, New York. 

Ghosh, S., Majumdar, D. & Jain, M.C. 2002. Nitrous oxide emissions 

from kharif and rabi legumes grown on an alluvial soil. Biology & 

Fertility of Soils, 35, 473–478. 

Helgason, B.L., Janzen, H.H., Chantigny, M.H., Drury, C.F., Ellert, 

B.H., Gregorich, E.G., et al. 2005. Toward improved coefficients for 

predicting direct N 2 O emissions from soil in Canadian agroecosystems. 

Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 72, 87–99. 

Hessen, D.O., Ågren, G.I., Anderson, T.R., Elser, J.J. & De Ruiter, P.C. 

2004. Carbon sequestration in ecosystems: the role of stoichiometry. 

Ecology, 85, 1179–1192. 

Infostat 2002. Software estadístico. Grupo InfoStat, Facultad de Ciencias 

Agropecuarias, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Córdoba. 

Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria 2012. [WWW document]. 

URL http://anterior.inta.gov.ar/suelos/cartas/ [accessed on 26 November 

2012]. 

IPCC 2007. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change. 

Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report 

of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007 (eds 

B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave & L.A. Meyer). 

[WWW document]. URL http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat 

a/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg3_report_mitigation_ 

of_climate_change.htm [accessed on 27 June 2013]. 

Jackson, M.L. 1958. Soil Chemical Analysis. Prentice-Hall, Englewood 

Cliffs, NJ. 

Keeney, D.R. & Nelson, D.W. 1982. Nitrogen-inorganic forms. In: 

Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2 (eds A.L. Page, R.H. Miller & D.R. 

Keeney), pp. 643–698. American Society of Agronomy – Soil Science 

Society of America, Madison, WI. 

Keeney, D.R., Fillery, I.R. & Marx, G.P. 1979. Effect of temperature on 

the gaseous nitrogen products of denitrification in a silt loam soil. Soil 

Science Society of America Journal, 43, 1124–1128. 

Lemon, S.C., Roy, J., Clark, M.A., Friedmann, P.D. & Rakowski, W. 

2003. Classification and regression tree analysis in public health: 

Methodological review and comparison with logistic regression. Annals 

of Behavioral Medicine, 26, 172–181. 

Li, C., Aber, J., Stange, F., Butterbach-Bahl, K. & Papen, H. 2000. 

A process-oriented model of N 2 O and NO emissions from forest 

soils: 1. Model development. Journal of Geophysical Research, 105, 

4369–4384. 

Linn, D.M. & Doran, J.W. 1984. Effect of water-filled pore space on 

carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide production in tilled and nontilled soils. 

Soil Science Society of America Journal, 48, 1267–1272. 

Maljanen, M., Virkajärvi, P., Hytönen, J., Öquist, M., Sparrman, T. & 

Martikainen, P.J. 2009. Nitrous oxide production in boreal soils with 

variable organic matter content at low temperature – snow manipulation 

experiment. Biogeosciences, 6, 2461–2473. 

Markus, D.K., McKinnon, J.P. & Buccafuri, A.F. 1985. Automated 

analysis of nitrite, nitrate and ammonium nitrogen in soils. Soil Science 

Society of America Journal, 49, 1208–1215. 

McClain, M.E., Boyer, E.W., Dent, C.L., Gergel, S.E., Grimm, N.B., 

Groffman, P.M., et al. 2003. Biogeochemical hot spots and hot moments 

at the interface of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Ecosystems, 6, 

301–312. 

Morgan, J.N. & Sonquist, J.A. 1963. Problems in the analysis of survey 

data, and a proposal. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 

58, 415–434. 

Rochette, P. & Janzen, H. 2005. Towards a revised coefficient for estimating 

N 2 O emissions from legumes. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 

73, 171–179. 

Sasal, M.C., Andriulo, A.E. & Taboada, M.A. 2006. Soil porosity 

characteristics and water movement under zero tillage in 

silty soils in Argentinian Pampas. Soil & Tillage Research, 87, 

9–18. 

Schindlbacher, A. & Zechmeister-Boltenstern, S. 2004. Effects of 

soil moisture and temperature on NO, NO 2 , and N 2 O emissions 

from European forest soils. Journal of Geophysical Research, 109, 

D17302. 

Shelton, D.R., Sadeghi, A.M. & McCarty, G.W. 2000. Effect of soil water 

content on denitrification during cover crop decomposition. Soil Science, 

165, 365–371. 

Smith, K.A., Ball, T., Conen, F., Dobbie, K.E., Massheder, J. & Rey, 

A. 2003. Exchange of greenhouse gases between soil and atmosphere: 

interactions of soil physical factors and biological processes. European 

Journal of Soil Science, 54, 779–791. 

Snyder, C.S., Bruulsema, T.W., Jensen, T.L. & Fixen, P.E. 2009. Review 

of greenhouse gas emissions from crop production systems and fertilizer 

management effects. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 133, 

247–266. 

Soil Survey Staff 1999. Soil Taxonomy, 2nd edn. U.S. Government Printing 

Office, Washington. 

Sterner, R.W. & Elser, J.J. 2002. Stoichiometry and homeostasis. In: 

Ecological Stoichiometry: The Biology of Elements from Molecules to 

the Biosphere (eds R.W. Sterner & J. Elser), pp. 1–42. Princeton 

University, Princeton, NJ. 

Trumbore, S.E., Chadwick, O.A. & Amundson, R. 1996. Rapid exchange 

between soil carbon and atmospheric carbon dioxide driven by 

temperature change. Science, 272, 393–396.

Hierarchy of factors driving N2O emissions in nontilled soils ... - INTA

Transform your PDFs into Flipbooks and boost your revenue!

Hierarchy of factors driving N2O emissions in nontilled soils ... - INTA

Transform your PDFs into Flipbooks and boost your revenue!

Delete template?

Save as template ?